Do you think there should be an upper age limit on voting?

[quote] the slippery slope bothers me.[/quote]

The slope bothers you.

Not the 'hey that's wrong, don't do that!'
It's more like, 'well ok, but then what comes next?'

I notice that you are pretty specific about which voters not to eliminate.

You see, conservatives are interested in all legal citizens voting. So, your concept seems kind of foreign.

@Budwick [quote]You see, conservatives are interested in all legal citizens voting.[/quote]

That's demonstrably false. Otherwise, there wouldn't be almost universal voter suppression in conservative states to prevent the poor and minorities from voting.

All US citizens should be automatically registered to vote for life when they turn 18. No exceptions. Whether they choose to vote or not is a separate issue.

@Budwick It may be my "liberal bias" but I don't see this as a right left issue.

In fact, my guess is older voters tend to be more conservative.

As a society, we need to decide who gets the franchise, and i'm pretty comfortable with a minimum and no maximum, and think that some kind of capacity that, on either end is impractical and creates more problems than it would solve.

I'd rather let a few senile voters vote than make it harder for non senile elderly folks.


Aliens really are a whole different issue, and I'm not in favor of illegals voting federally, nor would I vote to allow it in my municipality, but I don't want the feds telling the States who can and can't vote in local elections.

@windinhishair [quote]universal voter suppression in conservative states [/quote]

Oh! I see your problem. No, Windy, that's not voter suppression. That's voter identity!

I realize that in some blue states like Chicago - I realize Chicago is just a city, but the votes of people outside of Chicago don't count anyway, but anyway, in Chicago the motto is 'vote early, and vote often!' Well, as amusing as that may be, conservatives to roll that way.

@Budwick You are incorrect. Many conservative states started voter suppression efforts immediately following a Supreme Court decision striking down part of the Voting Rights Act a few years ago. North Carolina worked well into the night that day to do it within hours, and other states quickly followed suit. You can call it "voter identity" but everyone knows what it really is--voter suppression. It should have no place in the US.

Anyway, the issue is voting age limits. The age restriction we have now--over 18 with no cutoff for age--works well and should be retained.

@MistyCee [quote] I don't want the feds telling the States who can and can't vote in local elections.[/quote]

And I don't want ANYBODY telling legal citizens they can't vote.

Your slippery slope reference implied that at some level, restriction was OK - just don't let it go too far.

@windinhishair But there is an age cutoff. Or rather a party cutoff for legal citizens who the GOP will allow to vote. Look at the number of states where there is both GOP governorships/majority congressional state control. In everyone of those states requirements have been passed in the last few years that require driver's licenses or passports to be shown to vote. If you don't show one of the other ---no voting allowed. That automatically rules out seniors who no longer drive--or are to old to travel (need a passport)--and it also automatically rules out anyone who is disabled. Why? Because in the Republican mind people in senior centers and the disabled are on Medicaid...which is socialism..so those people MUST be pro-democrat. So to make sure those Dem votes are not cast---the GOP has passed a no drivers licence--no vote legislation.

Of course that screw job was disguised as a way---according to Republicans---- to make sure those dreaded illegals don't vote..........but that is another complete con job. illegal aliens can't vote in national elections anyway. The "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996" made sure of that....and it's still the law of the land. It was simply--flat out---voter suppression..of people suspected of voting Democratic.

@anythingoes477 Horse shit in the first degree - every word of it.

@Budwick Ahh.

I recently read somewhere that it's a liberal trait to see the world in shades of grey and a conservative trait to see things in black and white, and while I think that's at least an overgeneralization, I do see shades of grey.


We give the franchise to citizens only over 18, but not felons, for example. Slaves werent citizens, and they couldn't vote, despite counting as 3/5 of a person for population, and women couldn't vote. We tweaked the franchise to change that, and I think it's fair to continue to consider tweeaking it again, as time goes on, although I tend to like the old enough to serve, old enough to vote thing, and happen to think, if men have to register for the selective service, women should too, and we can do both voting and registration at 18.

The slope I was talking about was restricting voting rights on the basis of some criteria, like advanced age, which might tend to correlate with capacity, or, as OP suggested, as worthiness on the basis of the value of their vote.

I don't like this and don't trust it. I never have. As a child, I had an older man talk to me quite a bit about his view that what was wrong with the country was letting people who didn't own land vote. I disagreed with that and still do, but I got his point that property owners are stakeholders, while renters are less so. Obviously, his issue was taxes, btw, and he had some issues with women and blacks as well, but that's really beside the point.

I generally think we ought to restrict voting to "citizens" and not residents, whether they're lawful or lawful residents.


But,I see the wisdom of denying the franchise to felons, and, even though I like the 18 minimum age, can see why an argument could be made for making it 21 again, or even 30.

I don't have as much of a problem with a clear choice of who can vote, though, as I do with less clear or sneaky ways to limit voting. Poll taxes and literacy tests, for example are IMO pernicious not just because they have been used to discourage minority voters, but because they are easily subject to abuse.

On the other hand, I really don't have much, if any problem with motor voting registration, or even a voter ID law, IF it's phased in, and steps are taken to ensure that its applied fairly, i.e., that dmv offices in some counties aren't scarce, or that there's a way to apply by mail, etc.

Obviously, homeless people with no power box or transportation might still be proportionately inconvenienced or constructively disenfranchised, and we should take whatever steps we can agree on as fair and reasonable to help with that, but it points out what I was saying before:. Its never just black and white, but always shades of grey, and we need to, at some point, decide to call something on one side of the line or the other and , not just live with the call forever, but look at it again after awhile and see if it's working well.

Sorry for the long rant.

@MistyCee [quote] the long rant.[/quote]

The length isn't a problem.
The fact that it says nothing on the other hand ...

You mention a lot of circumstances and don't take a stand on any.

If you have a problem with oldsters voting, I'll tell you what, let's [b]all [/b]take a civics / history test. If we pass, we can vote. If you fail, you can shut up and take the test again next voting season.

@Budwick yeah, the incoherent ranting is a sign I need to get off soon, but...

Just to be clear, I think old people should be allowed to vote, and that the dangers of some of them doing so after they're senile and can't reason as well are not worth worrying about.

Driving, though, I think is different, because the risk of wrongly denying them the privilege is outweighed by the harm they could cause behind the wheel.

In that case, I think making old people come in and take a vision and driving test every few years instead of just letting them renew by mail is a good thing, not because it's right or wrong, but because it's a reasonable way to compromise the rights of the individual against interest of the state in public safety.

With voting I don't think the risk is worth even making them take a test.

@MistyCee [quote]With voting I don't think the risk is worth even making them take a test.[/quote]

I thought you might feel that way. I don't put much faith in your teams knowledge base either.

In regards to driving, I agree. So does the state I live in. That's why everybody takes a vision test every couple years. Even pretty young girls.

@Budwick Do you favor some sort of literacy, civics or reasoning test?

I don't, but if we do that, i'd prefer doing it for everyone when they turn 18, and have some rational age for a retest or more frequent retests, because it would be consistent in excluding incompetent voters and minimize the burden on older voters to prove they're still worthy.

@MistyCee [quote]Do you favor some sort of literacy, civics or reasoning test?
[/quote]

I thought we covered that ground earlier. Remember way back about an hour ago when I wrote -

If you have a problem with oldsters voting, I'll tell you what, let's [b]all [/b]take a civics / history test. If we pass, we can vote. If you fail, you can shut up and take the test again next voting season.

[quote]the burden on older voters to prove they're still worthy.[/quote]

Baby Girl - senior citizens do not require affirmation from you.
One of our bigger concerns is that young people are gonna fuck things up, irreparably, before they realize what they have done.

@Budwick ok, I wasn't and am still not sure about whether you want a test for everyone, or were just figuring I was picking on seniors, but since you brought up young folks, you're good with 18?

@MistyCee [quote]I wasn't and am still not sure about whether you want a test for everyone[/quote]

I am truly sorry Misty - I thought I had covered that point when I wrote -

"I'll tell you what, let's all take a civics / history test"

But to make it clear - Yes, my thought would be for everyone to take the test.

Good with 18 to vote? No, I am not.

@Budwick gotcha. Sorry for being thick headed, but I wasnt sure if you were saying just better a test for everyone than one for old people.

So, if not 18, do you have a minimum age in mind or can we let kids take the test whenever they think they're ready?

@MistyCee I'm willing to think about it. But there's an awful lot of dumbosity in that age group.

@Budwick thanks for answering.

[image deleted]@windinhishair

@jackjjackson Let's give every single American over 18 a voter ID automatically when they turn 18. And (gasp!) all of them can vote. I know that's not compatible with your idea of only Republicans voting, but the country would be better off.

I proposed this awhile ago. Do try to keep up

https://similarworlds.com/18-Politics/2555615-Voter-ID-Hold-on-there

@windinhishair

@jackjjackson Stole an idea from me again, did you? Do try to remember where you steal ideas from.

@jackjjackson Oh and by the way, thanks for posting the link. Saved me from proving that I said it first in response to your meme before.